Gasheem Shookat Baksh vs.

CA
219 SCRA 115

FACTS:
Private respondent, Marilou Gonzales, filed a complaint dated October 27, 1987 for damages
against the petitioner for the alleged breach of their agreement to get married.
She met the petitioner in Dagupan where the latter was an Iranian medical exchange student who
later courted her and proposed marriage. The petitioner even went to Marilous house to secure
approval of her parents.
The petitioner then forced the respondent to leave with him in his apartment. Marilou was a
virgin before she lived with him.
After a week, she filed a complaint because the petitioner started maltreating and threatening her.
He even tied the respondent in the apartment while he was in school and drugged her. Marilou at
one time became pregnant but the petitioner administered a drug to abort the baby.
Petitioner repudiated the marriage agreement and told Marilou to not live with him since he is
already married to someone in Bacolod. He claimed that he never proposed marriage or agreed to
be married neither sought consent and approval of Marlious parents.
He claimed that he asked Marilou to stay out of his apartment since the latter deceived him by
stealing money and his passport. The private respondent prayed for damages and
reimbursements of actual expenses.
TC found for Marilou and awarded her P20,000 moral damages, P3,000 attys fees, P2,000 in costs.

ISSUE: Whether breach of promise to marry can give rise to cause for damages It depends.

HELD: Petition denied.

The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.
But when a man uses his promise of marriage to deceive a woman to consent to his malicious
desires, he commits fraud and willfully injures the woman. In that instance, the court found that
petitioners deceptive promise to marry led Marilou to surrender her virtue and womanhood.
Moral damages can be claimed when such promise to marry was a deceptive ploy to have carnal
knowledge with the woman and actual damages should be paid for the wedding preparation
expenses. Petitioner even committed deplorable acts in disregard of the laws of the country and
Art. 19, CC.
 Petrophil Corp. v. CA
G.R. No. 122796

FACTS:
Specific performance and preliminary injunction
Petrophil and Dr. Amanda Ternida-Cruz entered into a contract where Dr. Cruz would haul and
transport packages/ bulk products of Petrophil.
o Par. 11: contract to be for indefinite period, but Petrophil may terminate at any time with
30-day written notice.
Petrophil advised Dr. Cruz that it was terminating the contract (par. 11).
Dr. Cruz appealed but Petrophil denied, so she filed a case for the nullity of the termination and to
declare its suspension as contrary to the terms and conditions.
o Some drivers of Dr. Cruz also filed a case for damages vs Petrophil. These were jointly tried.
o Dr. Cruz: termination of the contract was in retaliation for allegedly sympathizing with the
striking Petrophil employees and for informing the PNOC president of anomalies
committed by Petrophil employees.
o Petrophil: Dr. Cruz and her husband joined the employees at the picket line and refused to
load petroleum products, resulting in the disruption of delivery to service stations in Metro
Manila and provinces, which resulted in loss of revenues. Besides, it was allowed to
terminate the contract w/o cause (par.11).
TC ruled in favor of Dr. Cruz, ordering Petrophil to pay P309,723.65 in unearned hauling charges,
P20,000 attys fees, costs; P64,390 in unearned salaries of drivers

ISSUE: W/N there was a tort

HELD: Yes. Petition denied.

Elements of abuse of right
o There is a legal right/ duty;
o Which is exercised in bad faith;
o For the sole purpose of injuring/ prejudicing another.
Petrophil terminated the contract without asking Dr. Cruz to explain herself; in doing so, it
willfully caused the drivers to lose their jobs and income.
o Dr. Cruz then should be awarded damages, as Petrophils termination constituted bad faith.
Re: damages for respondent-drivers In Art. 20, no requirement that the act is directed at a
specific person, but that a person suffers damages as a consequence of a wrongful act of another in
order that indemnity may be demanded from the wrongdoer, is enough.
 Yutuk v. MERALCO

Facts:
Meralco inspector Eliseo Jaime went to Yutuks house and told maid that he wanted to enter
premises to check meter. Yutuk told him that meter was outside. Later, electricity was cut off and
when Yutuk asked him what the trouble was, he replied with another question: Why she was
paying only 50% of bills.
Yutuk thought Jaime came to fix her defective meter which she had reported to Meralcos
collectors but Jaime told her that she was stealing electric current using by using a jumper.
Filed case for slander vs. Jaime convicted
Meralco filed for theft > dismissed

Issue: Moral damages (Art. 2217)

Held: Yes

Ratio: While moral damages are incapable of pecuniary estimation, they are made recoverable, if they
are the proximate result of the defendants wrongful act or omission; and since these damages affect
aggrieved partys moral feelings and personal pride, these should be weighed in the determination of
the indemnity.

Issue: WON there was bad faith

Held: no really but at the very least, the facts of case show the appellant did it with reckless
negligence

Ratio:
1. when Yutuk reported incident, company showed unwillingness to entertain
* said they would only if Jaime would be convicted in slander case
2. then filed complaint for theft!
-motivated purely by malice and ill-will and as a retaliatory measure for civil axn filed by plaintiff
- filed case only 4 mos after supposed discovery thereof

250,000-exorbitant
25,000 MD
-mental anguish by reason of false imputation
- besmirched rep, ridicule, humiliation
- personal circs and reputation considered
 Medina v. Castro-Bartolome

FACTS:
Cosme de Aboitiz, acting in his capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer of the defendant
Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of the Philippines, Inc., went to the Pepsi-Cola Plant in Muntinlupa,
Metro Manila and without any provocation, shouted and maliciously humiliated Ernesto Medina
and Jose G. Ong:
GOD DAMN IT. YOU FUCKED ME UP ... YOU SHUT UP! FUCK YOU! YOU ARE BOTH SHIT TO
ME! YOU ARE FIRED (referring to Ernesto Medina). YOU TOO ARE FIRED! '(referring to Jose
Ong ) for having allegedly delayed the use of promotional crowns
effected on the very day that plaintiffs were awarded rings of loyalty to the Company, 5
days before Christmas and on the day when the employees' Christmas party was held so
that when Medina and Ong went home that day and found their wives and children already
dressed up for the party, they didn't know what to do and so they cried unashamedly
A joint criminal complaint for oral defamation against Aboitiz
Provincial Fiscal: dismissed the complaint since uttered not to slander but to express anger
and displeasure
Petition for Review with the office of the Secretary of Justice (now Ministry of Justice): reversed
Aboitiz filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but it was dismissed since
the complaint for civil damages is clearly not based on an employer-employee relationship but on
the manner of plaintiffs' dismissal and the effects flowing therefrom
This case was filed on May 10, 1979. The amendatory decree, P.D. 1367, which took effect
on May 1, 1978 and which provides that Regional Directors shall not indorse and Labor
Arbiters shall not entertain claims for moral or other forms of damages, now expressly
confers jurisdiction on the courts in these cases, specifically under the plaintiff's causes of
action
alreadly settled by jurisprudence that mere asking for reinstatement does not remove from
the CFI jurisdiction over the damages. The case must involve unfair labor practices to bring
it within the jurisdiction of the CIR (now NLRC)
A second motion to dismiss was filed because of the promulgation of P.D. No. 1691 amending Art.
217 of the Labor Code of the Philippines and Batasan Pambansa Bldg. 70 which took effect on May
1, 1980, amending Art. 248 of the Labor Code.
jurisdiction over employee-employer relations and claims of workers have been removed
from the Courts of First Instance

ISSUE: W/N the Labor Code has any relevance to the reliefs sought

HELD: NO. petition is granted

simple action for damages for tortiuous acts is governed by the Civil Code and not the Labor Code
plaintiffs have not alleged unfair labor practices; only a case for damages based on the way they
were fired. Thus, civil case must be reinstated.

AQUINO, J.,dissenting:
The two signed on January 5, 1978 letters of resignation and quitclaims and were paid sep pay.
More than a month after their dismissal, or on January 27, 1978, Medina and Ong filed a complaint
for illegal dismissal MoL dismissed that complaint because of their resignation and quitclaim.
Later, they filed for damages. Cant split CoA.
 Tenchavez v. Escano

Facts:
Vicenta Escao and Pastor Tenchavez secretly got married before a Catholic chaplain and planned
to elope.
The elopement did not materialize because Vicentas mother discovered such marriage. Her
parents asked the advice of one Father Reynes and subsequently agreed to recelebrate the
marriage.
However, Vicenta refused to proceed with the ceremony because a letter from the students of San
Carlos College disclosed that Pastor and their matchmaker, Pacita Noel had an amorous
relationship.
Vicenta left for the States, acquired a foreign divorce and married an American, Russel Leo Moran
in Nevada.
Husband field complaint:
o Vs. Parents: for having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband and
alienating her affections
o Vs. Roman Catholic Church: for having decreed annulment
Parents filed counterclaim for moral and exemplary damages.

Issue: WON there is an action for alienation of affections against parents

Held: NO
Ratio:
1. no proof of malice
2. parents themselves suggested that the marriage be celebrated again
3. also, Vicenta appeared to have acted independently and being of age, she was entitled to judge
what was best for her and ask that her decisions be respected

THERE WAS A VALID MARRIAGE between Vicenta and Pastor: remember personsso
Vicentas refusal to perform her wifely duties, and her denial of consortium and her desertion
of husband constitute in law a wrong caused through her fault, for which the husband is
entitled to the corresponding indemnity (2176)

45,000 damages awarded to parents deemed excessive:

filing of suit nay have wounded their feelings and caused anxiety but this has not seriously
injured their reputation or otherwise prejudiced them, lawsuits having become a common
occurrence in present society.